Another Book About Obama

David Garrow, Pulitzer-prize winning author of a book on Martin Luther King Jr., has written a book about Barack Obama–Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama–to be released May 9, 2017. Garrow began writing his book in 2008, working on it over the past 9 years. The book, 1460+ pages long, covers Obama’s history from the point where his father allegedly came to the U.S. in the late 1950s through 2016 (but with scant coverage after 2007). Garrow spoke recently on Jamie Weinstein’s radio show:

I think that people irrespective of their political views or partisan identification will be astonished—I cannot say that too strongly—will be profoundly astonished by how much important substance of Barack Obama’s life has not previously been known. … [emphasis added to quotes]

Garrow continued:

What most disappointed me back in the context of 2008 was how little interest U.S. journalists of all stripes took in the eight years that Barack spent in Springfield, Illinois, in the state legislature. There is not even, as we sit here today, a good magazine article out there about Barack’s time in the Illinois state legislature. …

Barack and his closest friend in the early 1990s, when they were in law school, wrote several hundred pages of a proposed book manuscript that was never published. Particularly the 140 pages or so of that manuscript that are about race give significant insight into Barack’s thinking, you know, when he was leaving law school, about to enter into public life in Illinois. …

Had some Republican opposition researcher come up with the book manuscript he wrote in law school, there are multiple things that could have been used to Guinier him. …

I think even back in 2008, 2009, from the very get-go, I was surprised at people’s willingness to assume that Barack’s memoir, Dreams From My Father, was without question historically reliable. I thought from the beginning that that was probably too charitable a presumption. …

What I would fairly say, and we see this again very much in the present day, is that when one becomes president of the United States, it’s not uncommon for that person to think that their memory, their version of events, inescapably trumps all other people’s versions.

In the fuller version of the interview, at this link, Garrow gives clues about his own political views:

Garrow is skeptical of U.S. intelligence agencies and the way that the anti-Trump “dossier” was published; he gives it little credence. Garrow mentions the “incompetence” that he perceives in those agencies and notes that much of their work “is contracted out to for-profit contractors,” making results suspect.

Garrow states that the recent Wikileaks release about CIA software is “vastly more important” than investigating potential connections between former Trump advisors and Russia.

However, Garrow also believes that there’s “zero chance” that Barack Obama would have targeted President Donald J. Trump for surveillance, although he believes that it’s entirely possible that Obama’s minions (my word, not his) may have deliberately unmasked and spread intelligence gathered incidentally for political reasons.

Garrow is a Bernie Sanders supporter, in his own words a “leftist progressive Democrat,” so don’t expect many juicy new revelations in his book. Throughout the Weinstein interview, Garrow refers to Obama by his first name, which makes one wonder how objectively he looks at his subject.

At least half of the interview concerned matters other than the upcoming Obama book. Garrow held quite a few personal interviews with Obama but all were off the record, so he’s not allowed to quote Obama, and he says that Obama disagrees with Garrow’s take on some topics.

Weinstein asked Garrow about specific allegations that have been made about Obama over the years, notably and curiously side-stepping the question about where Obama was born. Following are paraphrases of a few questions that were asked, followed by Garrow’s answers:”

Is Obama a closet Muslim? No, according to Garrow.

Is Obama a Marxist? No.

Did Obama write Dreams from my Father”? Yes, he wrote it but “Rob”, his best friend at Harvard, edited it (not Bill Ayers).

Is Obama gay or was he at any time in his life? No.

Did Obama ever experiment with the gay lifestyle? Garrow believes that Obama deserves a “certain basic degree of privacy” so he won’t “speculate” about that, but he states that prior to Michelle Robinson, Obama had “three major” relationships. Garrow names Alex and Genevieve, both white women with names already known to the media; but it’s unclear from the interview with whom Obama’s third relationship was–Garrow didn’t say (or I missed it) but Garrow did state that Rob was as “intellectually important” to Obama as were the three pre-Michelle girlfriends.

Obama never wrote a bylined piece as editor of the law review, perhaps because his interests extended beyond. “I don’t think Barack sees this as a steppingstone to the academic aspects of the law,” Rob Fischer, a close friend of Obama back at Harvard, told the Record at the time.

“But whatever he does, he is extraordinarily committed to making a contribution to the resolution of social problems in this country.”

The identification is confirmed by a UK news article about Garrow’s book:

The historian [Garrow]said Obama and his friend Robert Fischer wrote hundreds of pages for a proposed book in the early 1990s when they were still in law school. The manuscript was never published.

Racism against African-Americans continues to exist throughout American society, an admittedly racist culture. Precisely because America is a racist society, we cannot realistically expect white America to make special concessions toward blacks over the long haul. The greatest testimony to the force of racist ideology in American culture is that it infects not only the mind of whites, but the minds of blacks as well.

Obama’s views may have (were they more widely known at the time) been used by Obama’s opponents in the presidential elections, according to Garrow.

Robert Fischer. Odd that he’s managed to escape notice by the many commenters on this blog and others. There’s no mention of Rob or Robert Fischer or Fisher anywhere here on our blog.

At Harvard, Obama’s best friends were Cassandra Butts, Ken Mack, and Robert Fisher, according to Mack. Fisher and Obama were particular proteges of Laurence H. Tribe, who taught at there at the time. Obama and Fischer (alternately spelled Fisher) held that interpreting the Constitution is a “conversation,” as cited by Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf in their book On Reading the Constitution.

Dr. Robert M. Fisher is an Assistant Director in the Office of International Affairs at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Dr. Fisher is both an attorney and an economist; his education includes a Ph.D. in Economics from Duke University (1982) and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (1991, magna cum laude). He is responsible for SEC technical assistance, including sharing best regulatory practices, assistance on draft regulations and statutes, answering inquiries from foreign regulators on SEC practice and the provision of training to foreign regulators. In the past three years, he has provided in-country consultations, given technical presentations, participated as a speaker or conducted training programs in the following countries: Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine and the United States. Prior to his present position, Dr. Fisher served as a financial economist in the SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis, where he worked on policy-related issues and in support of enforcement. Before joining the SEC, Dr. Fisher’s legal career included stints (as a lawyer) at the law firms of Fried Frank, Sidley & Austin and Skadden Arps. At Fried Frank -and just prior to joining the SEC- he was Special Counsel and focused on securities regulatory and enforcement matters. While his primary area of practice has been securities regulation, he has also worked on telecommunications, anti-trust, railway, international trade and banking matters. He clerked for Judge Stephen F. Williams at the US Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Dr. Fisher also has experience as a consultant, working as a “practice manager” at a for-profit corporate think-tank known as the Corporate Executive Board, where he oversaw various teams of consultants providing best practice studies (largely to Fortune 500 companies.) His academic experience includes teaching economics as an Associate Professor at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, as well as stints (as an economist) at Cambridge University as a Visiting Fellow, at the Australian National University as a Research Fellow and at the University of Adelaide (South Australia) as a Tutor. He also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC, where he co-taught a course on Global Securities Markets. Dr. Fisher has published one book, entitled The Logic of Economic Discovery. It is an exploration of economic methodology. Dr. Fisher was a recipient of the US SEC Chairman’s Award for Excellence in 2008.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Robert M. Fisher has been named Managing Executive of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE). In this role, Dr. Fisher will oversee OCIE’s business operations, technology services, examiner training, and Tips, Complaints and Referrals programs. He succeeds Peter B. Driscoll who has been named Chief Risk and Strategy Officer of OCIE’s new Office of Risk and Strategy. …

Dr. Fisher came to the SEC in 2002 as an Economic Fellow in the Office of Economic Analysis, now the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. He was named an Assistant Director in the Office of International Affairs (OIA) in 2005, with responsibility for the SEC’s technical assistance program for emerging markets. He became OIA’s Deputy Director in 2012 and later served as the office’s Acting Director. In 2014, Dr. Fisher joined OCIE as an Associate Director within its Office of the Director.

Before coming to the SEC, Dr. Fisher was a Washington, D.C.-based attorney in private practice and clerked for Judge Stephen F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His academic experience includes serving as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, Associate Professor at the College of the Holy Cross, Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University, and Research Fellow at the Australian National University.

Dr. Fisher holds a Ph.D. and bachelor’s degree in Economics from Duke University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude).

For the past 9 years, we’ve been studying fake news about Obama–9 years before “fake news” became a catchphrase. How likely is it that a self-described leftist/progressive Democrat is going to reveal any true truths about Obama in this new book? How interesting, though, that even a leftist/progressive historian immediately doubted the facts presented in Obama’s allegedly self-written history.

Do we feel like revisiting this topic? Will we still be amused when comparing previous “true facts” written about Obama by the obsequious media (see our O Timeline) or are we burned out on the subject of Obama’s many surrealistic and fantastic biographies?

For a recent example, this story states that Obama was 3 when his parents divorced; he was 2, if we believe alternate “facts“. It also says his mother’s name was Ann. Others have reported differently.

Apparently, tomorrow, what the North Koreans call the “day of the sun” is an anniversary of the birthday of Kim yong somethin or another that started the
dynasty. Debka reports likely preparations for a sixth nuclear test on this day, “in a tunnel”.
Debka also reports that China has moved 150,000 Army to the North Korean border,
We all know that the Carl Vincent battle group is now stationed offshore.
This article, from the not ever so reliable B4itsnews bunch says:

None of this proves much of anything, but, I took a bunch of what I call
WW3 money out of the bank today just in case of instability.

The Pyongyang story doesn’t feel true. North Korea’s prepared for mass
response involves thousands of artillery pieces focused on Seoul and many missiles, which they have shown us could be VX tipped, targeted on both South Korea and Japan, and predug tunnels for a mass invasion of South Korea.

None of this stuff involves Pyongyang. I doubt our military would waste our
assets on a non-strategic target. I have read estimates that North Korea can reign 100,000 artillery shells per hour on Seoul. I doubt we would
waste our first hour on Pyongyang.

Still, I suggest being careful. I think we can read between the lines that
President Trump has agreed with China their holding back from any
nuclear response in case of hostilities with North Korea.

600,000 people are a lot to move. I didn’t see anything about this in the lamestream. Supposedly, the big announcement/event was a new housing project unveiled. That story says they’re going to celebrate on Saturday, so there may yet be some kind of nuclear test. These people are absolutely nuts. Or, I should say, their dear leader is. Whether the people actually support him or not remains to be seen. I suppose nobody wants to be put in a cage and eaten by rats (or whatever it was that happened to his relative). Or poisoned in the airport. Whatever happened to that story, btw? Talk about being born into the wrong family. Gateway Pundit had a story that the SEALS are preparing to take him out. We shall see. It’s long past time, imho. I’m not for murder or assassination, but this guy is a threat, not only to his own people, but to millions of people around the world. It was reported in the WSJ that Trump made a deal with China. They help do something about the madman and he won’t be as tough on China as he indicated during the election.

Syria says US strike hit ISIS poison gas depot, killed hundreds; US denies
Reuters|Published: 13.04.17 , 16:05
BEIRUT—The Syrian army said an air strike late on Wednesday by the US-led coalition hit poison gas supplies belonging to Islamic State, releasing a toxic substance that killed “hundreds,” but the coalition denied carrying out raids in the area.

A statement by the army, flashed on Thursday by Syrian state TV, said the incident in the eastern Deir al-Zor province proved that Islamic State and al Qaeda-linked militants “possess chemical weapons.”

The report could not immediately be independently verified.

US Air Force Colonel John Dorrian, a spokesman for the coalition, said it had carried out no air strikes in that area at that time.

What to think?
We didn’t have any planes in battle so
must be a Syrian false flag,

looks like blame it on isis,
they must be getting a bit worried to attempt this stunt

Don’t get me wrong, isis are crap,
but if we didn’t have any planes in the sky, therefore we did not bomb anything,
but if a large cloud of poisonous gas was released, and the picture attached to the linked article looks less like an explosion and more like a release,
then we didn’t do it, and therefore, someone else did.

“New York – First African-American Muslim woman in US history to serve on the bench, was found dead Wednesday in the Hudson river. Her body washed up on the Manhattan side of the river, sources said. …”

UBER. A new topic and some questions:
1. Can anyone explain why it seems that Republicans are FOR Uber and other ride-sharing companies, while DemoncRATS oppose it? Now I realize unions back the cabbies and that Uber and the others don’t want to unionize. This has the potential to cause people to lose their full-time jobs AND it does seem to leave fewer options for disabled paople and those who don’t have the money for smart phones.
2. This story talks about drunken Uber drivers with the “company” not taking enough responsibility for them: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-tells-Uber-it-s-sloppy-about-11069749.php
With regard to passenger safety: What kind of insurance, if any, do these drivers have? They’re part-time. IF they only have regular insurance, like any driver, it’s LIKELY that the insurance does NOT cover any accidents or, especially, injury to passengers, when the car is being used as transport-for-hire. My insurance policy has a long, NEW clause stating that it’s void if the car is being operated as a ride-sharing vehicle. SO, how is one to know, when taking Uber, whether there’s protection for the passenger if there’s an accident?
3. In MO, there’s a new law being proposed to allow Uber and the others to not be regulated as taxis are, in the various municipalities. They include a clause that insurance companies are to notify Uber when an Uber driver’s insurance lapses. So does this mean that Uber drivers must get a special kind of insurance that covers their passengers? If not, then how would the insurance company know TO notify the state and/or Uber? And if so, how does a passenger determine if a driver has the right kind of insurance? If they absolve Uber drivers from following regulations taxis must follow (like posting proof of insurance and business licenses and identification and passing background checks), then how will passengers KNOW they’re safe?

The basic idea was ok,
You could use an app on a smartphone to summon a taxi.
That could have been applied to any licensed taxis.
I drove taxi for a year in Chicago. That was when I first got out of college, there was a big recession and I couldn’t find a job in my profession. It was interesting.
There’s a good reason why all taxis should be licensed.
There is no reason whatsoever to expand that to some
zero hours deliveroo type contract employing any bum that shows up.
Add to that the obsession with self driving cars and I wouldn’t get in a UBER taxi with a barge pole.
The basic idea with taxi safety is you have to apply for a taxi driver’s license and you get checked out fully. If you are such a low life you can’t get an official license, you have no busy carrying passengers.
What does that word “uber” mean again?
Think it’s on to of or superior to.
Really.

All as I suspected and I agree. Sure, it’s a good deal to be able to summon a cab via an app. More power to them. But some regulations ARE good and for the public welfare. I’ve been in cabs with some pretty bizarre people, so even more dicey to get in a car with “any bum that shows up.” Can’t agree more. It may not even be an Uber driver who shows up. We know things can be hacked. Can’t Uber be? A stalker knows where young women live and knows they use Uber. Somehow hacks into the system and comes to pick up the girl(s)! Dangerous, imho. I have a cousin who drove a cab when I was a kid. He enjoyed it, too. We liked riding in his cab. So much leg room in a big old Yellow Cab! Wish I had that car. I wonder if these Uber drivers even had to get chauffeurs licenses. Why do you think, though, that Republicans support Uber? Just because of the cabbie unions?

Oh, he’d never come someplace like this. Like Maraniss, he’ll probably stick to all the other fabulously fake biographies. He says he interviewed Barry, who DISAGREES with him on some of what he’s writing. But ALL off the record. No quoting! He’s already supplying an excuse for Barry–people remember things differently. How easy to “blame” constructive memory. His lies in his autobiography are not faulty memory–they’re calculated lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations to cover the truth and to fool people into believing he’s what he’s not. I begin to wonder if he may not be Filipino, given that his mother spent time there. If it wasn’t “Ann” then which wife of BHO Sr.’s was it “in the Philippines,” as mentioned in the passport records? I still think he was adopted. IF “Ann” is technically his (adoptive) “mother,” then she may have selected him in the Philippines or possibly Indonesia. It’s a question of law yet to be determined whether an adopted kid can be a “natural born citizen” if BORN outside the USA to non-citizen parents but adopted here, given a birth certificate that names citizen parent or parents.

Definately open to re-opening all the “stuff” on Obama, his family and his friends as it will NOT be boring to revisit in light of all we now know which does seem like not much more but we just don’t know when we will get a winning “cha-ching” with some obscure but now available piece of information. (Quite the sentence, huh?)

Also, I think people are going to be lazy about protecting the “bad, sick” man as more time distances him from the WH.

I doubt that I’m going to read 1460+ pages about him, though. I hope somebody will condense it for us. I suspect, though, that it will be more of the same. Already, this author is talking about Alex and Genevieve, who only reared their heads in an attempt to refute allegations about Barry’s potential “experimentation” with the gay lifestyle, iirc. He certainly was a close sitter with male roommates, imho–and not because they had a too-small couch. Then there’s Sinclair and the rest. And what Joan Rivers said about “Michael”. I found it amusing, though, that a liberal historian says that he, too, immediately doubted the truth of Barry’s “autobiography.” Who, however, is this suddenly-named “best friend” from Harvard who allegedly is the one who prettied-up Barry’s prose? All these years and nobody has bothered to mention before who this guy is? He has basically no presence on the Web. I tried to find a photo of him but no luck. Is he black? Can’t tell. Why is his name spelled two different ways?

Read that load of it! So, in essence, Judge Napolitano and President Trump were 100% right. The UK intelligence agencies WERE spying on Trump and his people and passing the information to Obama and his minions. So what I take from this entire story is that:

Obama and the DemoncRATS were colluding with the UK AND that the UK was INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION!

Oh, of course it was “so sensitive it was handled at “director level”.” Read BRENNAN! Note that they “briefed” the Gang of Eight so NOW we understand who was leaking and how they found out in the first place. (How did REID and HILLARY find out in the first place? FARKAS?!! How’d SHE find out?)

Yes, it was SO SENSITIVE that Barry HAD TO downgrade the secrecy (classified) level and then be sure to pass it all over all 17 agencies in order to be sure it got leaked to damage Trump. There’s nothing there. We KNOW there’s nothing there. They’re trying to cover for Barry. Is he already in the UK? Is he having them help put out this TOTAL BS to “exonerate” HIM and make it look as if there’s really something there and that the Brits were SO CONCERNED that they had no choice but to notify Brennan (with Barry in the dark)? Right. BS. Who’s Barry meeting with? Is somebody monitoring what HE’S up to and who he may be colluding with in order to, perhaps, undermine the current elected government of the USA? Look what they cite: The banks. WE KNOW THERE’S NOTHING THERE. The banks were hit by a spammer. NOTHING. Page’s contacts in 2013. HE WAS WORKING WITH THE FBI AT THE TIME! NOTHING. Meetings in the UK and NETHERLANDS. Wasn’t that ANOTHER GUY ALTOGETHER? Somebody with the same name as Trump’s associate? Besides which, these guys weren’t even part of the campaign. I wonder: Were the Brits spying on Hillary and HER connections to Ukraine, Russia, SOROS?

Suddenly the narrative has another subtle change. Did you catch it?

““They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion,” the source said. “This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.””

Uh, huh. Not Russian agents but agents “of influence.” There’s a difference, isn’t there? NOT collusion to hack but suddenly “the USE of hacked material.” So let’s take a guess: They’re going to say that the hacking was done by Russians (which we KNOW IS NOT TRUE) and that people at “alt-right media sites” (read:Breitbart/Bannon) USED hacked material after it was in the public domain thanks to Wikileaks. USE OF HACKED MATERIAL. Is that now a crime? If so, then who’s NOT guilty who read it and commented on it, anywhere? I noticed this before. Commented on it before. That they’re trying to make some kind of connection between when stuff hit Wikileaks and then how FAST it went viral, supposedly “proving” collusion and coordination. It proves NOTHING. There were THOUSANDS of views of that man getting dragged off the airplane within MINUTES. The Internet is FAST and people on the “alt-right” are media and TECH SAVVY. These blogs/sites probably use software and AI to sort information and send it viral. It’s probably relatively easy to do. That doesn’t prove a damned thing. And besides which, we have FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY. There’s no such thing as “collusion” that’s “relating to the use of hacked material.” These are the DemoncRATS like Schiff talking. The UK government was AS AGAINST TRUMP as were the DemoncRATS and the never-Trump RINO/GOPe. They should be investigated to see if there was ANY collusion between Hillary, Obama, and the UK intelligence agencies to spy on Trump and interfere in the election. They may be our ally, but they’re also FOREIGNERS. They’re globalists who are totally against, politically, Trump’s nationalism and any attempt to have detente/cooperation with Russia against ISIS.

“U.S. adversaries, including Russia last year, have “used all kinds of vectors to try and influence and undermine our own faith in our democratic processes” and have relied on increasingly sophisticated tactics, the FBI director warned.

Speaking at a Newseum event Wednesday night, he [Comey] said the FBI would be transparent in publicly calling out efforts to meddle in American politics and that the public also should take steps to guard against foreign influence. …”

Tell us, Jim: HOW do we guard against foreigners meddling in our elections by spying on our candidates and trying to undermine their campaigns by getting the FBI and CIA involved, so these false allegations are leaked ILLEGALLY to try to influence the election? Pray tell. We need your superior wisdom. After all, WE THE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID TO RECOGNIZE an “organized disinformation campaign,” AFTER HAVING JUST SPENT 9 YEARS INVESTIGATING A DOOZY OF ONE OURSELVES!

“U.S. intelligence agencies said in a January report that Russian efforts to interfere in last year’s American presidential election in favor of Republican Donald Trump included paid social media users, or “trolls.” Part of the goal was to spread information to “denigrate” Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost the November election, according to the report.

The FBI is investigating, including whether the Kremlin coordinated with Trump campaign associates. …”

EXACTLY what I said they’d say. Yes. That evil “alt-right” media COORDINATED with paid TROLLS to “denigrate” Hillary by USING “hacked” information (which wasn’t hacked but stolen by the now-deceased Seth Rich, according to some).

Which party has used TROLLS for YEARS? DemoncRATS. They know of what they speak. In typical liberal/progressive style, they ACCUSE THEIR OPPONENTS OF DOING WHAT THEY DO. It’s like with their cries about dark money in politics and Citizens United. They only care about money going to their opponents, as THEY THEMSELVES COLLECT BILLIONS FROM THE LIKES OF SOROS, while he uses his own paid TROLLS and hired “peaceful protesters” to astroturf protests to overthrow governments or try to “denigrate” the Republican presidential nominee.

They’re going to try to use TIMING to “prove” collusion via circumstantial “evidence”. It’s BS. Pure and simple. IF THEY HAD EVIDENCE THEN WHY WOULDN’T THEY HAVE RELEASED IT BEFORE THE ELECTION? BS. Is Comey going to investigate Soros and his collusion and interference in the election? How about the British? Will he investigate their ties to Clinton and their collusion to interfere in the election and, WORSE, to undermine a sitting president (Trump)?

WHEN WILL COMEY BE FIRED?

He’s COMMENTING ON AND SPEAKING PUBLICLY ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION. Is that not unethical?

CNN, the UK media, and DemoncRATS: MAKING EXCUSES FOR OBAMA. This is YUGE if he colluded with the Brits to spy FOR HIM, as Napolitano said. YUGE. He takes off to Polynesia just as all this is breaking. WHY?

“British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individualsduring the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.

The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what’s known as “incidental collection,” these sources tell CNN. …”

BS!!!! AS NAPOLITANO SUGGESTED, Barry didn’t HAVE TO INVOLVE THE NSA. He got the Brits to do it for him. They can incidentally capture conversations while spying on Russians. Here, we can, too. BUT the NSA cannot transcribe those conversations without MASKING the U.S. citizens. However, if you get the BRITS to do it, just as Napolitano said, THEY can give you the transcripts, unmasked, and who’s the wiser? Barry made it a habit to do clever, lawyerly END RUNS AROUND LAWS. So why wouldn’t he do this? It’s his M.O. exactly. But now that it’s coming out, the people who want to protect his “legacy” at all costs are rallying around to MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM.

“Trump — citing an uncorroborated Fox News report — claimed that Britain had tapped his phones in Trump Tower at former President Barack Obama’s behest. …”

More BS!!! WHEN did Trump EVER say that? That BRITAIN tapped his phones in Trump Tower? He didn’t say it. What Napolitano said is that British agents have access to the NSA database and THEY could scour it and get the conversations, transcribe them, and hand them to Barry’s minions because it’s not against OUR law for THEM to do it and it’s not against their own laws, either, apparently. But if THEY did the intercepts, then the NSA may not have been involved at all. The transcripts could have gone from the UK right to Barry, with no middle man and no masking. It’s very interesting that suddenly this BS is coming out as the intelligence committees plan to investigate this possibility–the unmasking and HOW these conversations became known to our intelligence agencies so they could be leaked.

I call it vindication. If the Brits are SO INNOCENT, then why did the head of that GCHQ RESIGN 3 days after Trump’s election? HE KNEW THE SCANDAL WAS TO COME, because how would they keep the facts from Trump?

“So just about every Western intelligence service was collaborating with the Obama administration in trying to elect Hillary Clinton. Yet, amazingly enough, they failed.

The blindingly obvious point that the Guardian tries to obscure is that the combined assets of all of these agencies failed to find any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. We know this, because the Democrats have pulled out all the stops. …”